7 ms·

I know the on-site is time-consuming and expensive, but so is firing people (at least in United States it is.) I've had a few on-site interviews where having th

I know the on-site is time-consuming and expensive, but so is firing people (at least in United States it is.) I've had a few on-site interviews where having them on-site made us realize we could never work with them. Given how much time they will spend with you, it's totally worth it to spend your resources on hiring.

sarchertech 2y ago
Firing people isn’t as expensive as people make it out to be. People vastly overestimate the chance of a lawsuit. And they overestimate the chance of a lawsuit that makes it far enough that it costs significant money even more. Hiring fast and firing fast (for lying or misrepresentation) is almost always a better business decision than being ultra defensive in the hiring process.
- salomon812 2y ago
  It's not the lawsuit, it's about the time wasted as a manager and salary to the person as you work out if it's actually time to fire. Performance Improvement Plans, a bunch of back-and-forths. I'm not going to be the kind of person that fires quickly, so there's a bunch of sunk cost we have to take. Plus, fast firing creates a cooling effect among everyone there. And for what? To save money on hiring? Not worth it.
  - floating-io 2y ago
    The counter argument is that firing too slowly can be a serious drag on morale. Leaving your team to carry dead weight can really suck for the team. Ask me how I know... :)
    - salomon812 2y ago
      Okay, so the original argument is about whether or not it's worth it to fly people out for an on-site. Hotel and airfare: $2000 absolute max. Salary at $100/hr for one month for me to figure out it's not going to work out, then pull the trigger to fire: $24,000. I mean, being a manager is hard, but putting in the time and money to hire and then putting in the time to make sure your team doesn't have a morale drag, it's worth it.
      - floating-io 2y ago
        The catch is that even in-person interviews are no panacea. I agree that it's worth the time to filter -- I wasn't really responding to that bit -- but from what I've seen, you have to be a very good interviewer not to get a bad hire every so often. I often wonder how many hiring managers are actually good interviewers, in-person or not, but I digress... Seeing the truly bad hires dragged along to the detriment of the rest of the team is a sore spot for me, though. It happens way too often in my experience.
        chgs 2y ago
        In person interview, or even coffee, filters out those who don’t actually exist and those who are reading answers from a screen (chatgpt/person) Seems to be 90% of the problem reported on this post
      - KennyBlanken 2y ago
        $17k/month, not $24k? If you're paying people $290k a year, no kidding you should bring them in for an on-site interview?
        salomon812 2y ago
        Oh geez, I see my math mistake. But even at $5k/mo, the point still stands.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  The fastest that I can possibly fire somebody is still months from the date I choose to hire them. I decide they are the best candidate. A recruiter talks with them to negotiate compensation and they accept the offer. This takes a week at best, but can take weeks if they are choosing between multiple offers. Then they choose a start date. They've got a couple weeks at the old job, plus probably some time in between roles before they start. So 2-6 weeks waiting here. Then they join and go through the company-wide onboarding and training processes and set up their equipment. Another week. The first time I actually get to have them do any work is 4-10 weeks from the date I chose to offer them a job. It now takes me some time to realize they are hopeless and misrepresented themself on their resume. Three weeks would be an extraordinary outcome here, but it more likely that this takes 8+ weeks. Even if the actual process of firing them is instant once I've decided that it was a bad hire, I'm still out 3-5 months from the date I chose to hire them. Any other strong candidates I had in the pipeline now have other jobs and I am starting from scratch. That is incredibly expensive.
  - salomon812 2y ago
    This. 100% this. I can't believe any company would look at this story (which I've heard variations on from multiple peers) and go: "we should save money by not flying candidates out for an on-site and use terrible AI tools to sort our candidates."
  - charlie0 2y ago
    Just hire them as contractors first. Give them a 2-3 month contract, if it doesn't work out, you just don't renew the contract.
    - mattm 2y ago
      That only works for desperate people. Sr people or people with other options would not take that risk.
      - charlie0 2y ago
        But we've just established in this thread that even senior people are having difficulty findings jobs. This has nothing to do with desperation. Temp contract works both ways, if an employee doesn't like the company or finds another job within the 2-3 months, they are free to leave. This is more than fair.
- A1kmm 2y ago
  Also imagine you are a company with a reputation for hiring people - inducing them to leave their current job - and then often dismissing them quickly afterwards. That would give many great prospective employees pause before applying to work there, because you are asking them to give up a good thing and take a chance on your company, without commitment. Far better to screen early.
jjav 2y ago
> so is firing people (at least in United States it is.) There's probably some country somewhere where it is easier to fire people than the US, but not sure where would that be. There are zero requirements to fire people in the US. No reason needed, no notice, no compensation, nothing. Most (if not all) other countries have varying levels of requirements, notice and compensation required to fire someone. In the US, nothing.
- salomon812 2y ago
  There's a difference between layoffs and firing. To fire an individual, the company must have documentation to ensure it's not a wrongful termination. Ironically, it's easier to lay-off 100 people because all you need to do is demonstrate their division's project is cancelled. And that documentation takes time as a manager, which costs money. But I admit not knowing completely because I haven't had to fire anyone yet. I have talked to legal about the process regarding someone not on my team.
  - idontpost 2y ago
    [dead]
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    >the company must have documentation to ensure it's not a wrongful termination. Companies develop documentation processes as they get bigger for myriad reasons, but there is very little to worry about in the US in the way of terminating someone. The only adverse effect most times is increase in unemployment insurance premiums, if you do not have enough documentation to show you terminated for cause. Otherwise, 99.9% of the time, the terminated person can claim whatever kind of wrongful termination they want, they probably won’t get anywhere via the courts.
  - ghusbands 2y ago
    What jjav is referring to is "at will" employment - in almost all US states, employees can be fired for almost any reason, with no recourse. So the fact you're saying that firing people is expensive and time-consuming in the US flies in the face of the actual legal environment there compared with most other relevant countries.
throwaway2037 2y ago
In most places, even with strong labour laws, you can layoff people for any reason in the first 30/60/90 days. And, the US has extremely weak labour laws. Usually, a month of severance for each year of service is customary, but probably not strictly required.

sarchertech 2y ago

Firing people isn’t as expensive as people make it out to be. People vastly overestimate the chance of a lawsuit. And they overestimate the chance of a lawsuit that makes it far enough that it costs significant money even more. Hiring fast and firing fast (for lying or misrepresentation) is almost always a better business decision than being ultra defensive in the hiring process.

salomon812 2y ago
It's not the lawsuit, it's about the time wasted as a manager and salary to the person as you work out if it's actually time to fire. Performance Improvement Plans, a bunch of back-and-forths. I'm not going to be the kind of person that fires quickly, so there's a bunch of sunk cost we have to take. Plus, fast firing creates a cooling effect among everyone there. And for what? To save money on hiring? Not worth it.
- floating-io 2y ago
  The counter argument is that firing too slowly can be a serious drag on morale. Leaving your team to carry dead weight can really suck for the team. Ask me how I know... :)
  - salomon812 2y ago
    Okay, so the original argument is about whether or not it's worth it to fly people out for an on-site. Hotel and airfare: $2000 absolute max. Salary at $100/hr for one month for me to figure out it's not going to work out, then pull the trigger to fire: $24,000. I mean, being a manager is hard, but putting in the time and money to hire and then putting in the time to make sure your team doesn't have a morale drag, it's worth it.
    - floating-io 2y ago
      The catch is that even in-person interviews are no panacea. I agree that it's worth the time to filter -- I wasn't really responding to that bit -- but from what I've seen, you have to be a very good interviewer not to get a bad hire every so often. I often wonder how many hiring managers are actually good interviewers, in-person or not, but I digress... Seeing the truly bad hires dragged along to the detriment of the rest of the team is a sore spot for me, though. It happens way too often in my experience.
      - chgs 2y ago
        In person interview, or even coffee, filters out those who don’t actually exist and those who are reading answers from a screen (chatgpt/person) Seems to be 90% of the problem reported on this post
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      $17k/month, not $24k? If you're paying people $290k a year, no kidding you should bring them in for an on-site interview?
      - salomon812 2y ago
        Oh geez, I see my math mistake. But even at $5k/mo, the point still stands.
UncleMeat 2y ago
The fastest that I can possibly fire somebody is still months from the date I choose to hire them. I decide they are the best candidate. A recruiter talks with them to negotiate compensation and they accept the offer. This takes a week at best, but can take weeks if they are choosing between multiple offers. Then they choose a start date. They've got a couple weeks at the old job, plus probably some time in between roles before they start. So 2-6 weeks waiting here. Then they join and go through the company-wide onboarding and training processes and set up their equipment. Another week. The first time I actually get to have them do any work is 4-10 weeks from the date I chose to offer them a job. It now takes me some time to realize they are hopeless and misrepresented themself on their resume. Three weeks would be an extraordinary outcome here, but it more likely that this takes 8+ weeks. Even if the actual process of firing them is instant once I've decided that it was a bad hire, I'm still out 3-5 months from the date I chose to hire them. Any other strong candidates I had in the pipeline now have other jobs and I am starting from scratch. That is incredibly expensive.
- salomon812 2y ago
  This. 100% this. I can't believe any company would look at this story (which I've heard variations on from multiple peers) and go: "we should save money by not flying candidates out for an on-site and use terrible AI tools to sort our candidates."
- charlie0 2y ago
  Just hire them as contractors first. Give them a 2-3 month contract, if it doesn't work out, you just don't renew the contract.
  - mattm 2y ago
    That only works for desperate people. Sr people or people with other options would not take that risk.
    - charlie0 2y ago
      But we've just established in this thread that even senior people are having difficulty findings jobs. This has nothing to do with desperation. Temp contract works both ways, if an employee doesn't like the company or finds another job within the 2-3 months, they are free to leave. This is more than fair.
A1kmm 2y ago
Also imagine you are a company with a reputation for hiring people - inducing them to leave their current job - and then often dismissing them quickly afterwards. That would give many great prospective employees pause before applying to work there, because you are asking them to give up a good thing and take a chance on your company, without commitment. Far better to screen early.

jjav 2y ago

> so is firing people (at least in United States it is.) There's probably some country somewhere where it is easier to fire people than the US, but not sure where would that be. There are zero requirements to fire people in the US. No reason needed, no notice, no compensation, nothing. Most (if not all) other countries have varying levels of requirements, notice and compensation required to fire someone. In the US, nothing.

salomon812 2y ago
There's a difference between layoffs and firing. To fire an individual, the company must have documentation to ensure it's not a wrongful termination. Ironically, it's easier to lay-off 100 people because all you need to do is demonstrate their division's project is cancelled. And that documentation takes time as a manager, which costs money. But I admit not knowing completely because I haven't had to fire anyone yet. I have talked to legal about the process regarding someone not on my team.
- idontpost 2y ago
  [dead]
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  >the company must have documentation to ensure it's not a wrongful termination. Companies develop documentation processes as they get bigger for myriad reasons, but there is very little to worry about in the US in the way of terminating someone. The only adverse effect most times is increase in unemployment insurance premiums, if you do not have enough documentation to show you terminated for cause. Otherwise, 99.9% of the time, the terminated person can claim whatever kind of wrongful termination they want, they probably won’t get anywhere via the courts.
- ghusbands 2y ago
  What jjav is referring to is "at will" employment - in almost all US states, employees can be fired for almost any reason, with no recourse. So the fact you're saying that firing people is expensive and time-consuming in the US flies in the face of the actual legal environment there compared with most other relevant countries.

throwaway2037 2y ago

In most places, even with strong labour laws, you can layoff people for any reason in the first 30/60/90 days. And, the US has extremely weak labour laws. Usually, a month of severance for each year of service is customary, but probably not strictly required.